Scientific Proof Of God

[Brian Peacock]

...

The modern non-religious man assumes a new existential position toward reality compared to all previous history. He regards himself as the sole subject and agent of history, and he refuses with scorn all appeals to transcendence. He considers the sacred as the prime obstacle to his freedom. He believes he will only become truly himself by demystifying everything, until he has killed every God.

....

So this event is seen by modern to have no significance at all other than it happened.

I believe it symbolizes the spiritual death of atheism and the forfeiture of divine protection

Tell us what you mean by 'transcendence' and 'spiritual' and perhaps we can start to have a honest discussion.

[Scot Dutchy]

Stop pestering his brain cell. It can only do so much.

[Brian Peacock]

What I am doing here is contrasting different world views and the absolute poverty of the atheist imagination.

What you're actually doing is demonstrating the intellectual and moral paucity of an ideology which demands that the reality of the natural world must bow down and conform to the ignorant assumptions and misapprehensions of long dead goat roasters without a germ theory of medicine, who thought the Earth was flat and the sky was a dome, and who raped and murdered their neighbours just to steal their stuff.

[Brian Peacock]

...

Which world view will not exist, sh&thead...

As if the Nye geek and the gang of atheists we deftly deal with (https://nostradamusart.wordpress.com) can destroy thousands of years of religious belief. Scoff.

It's about time you faced up to the fact that we're only atheists because you've failed to convince us. Therefore you have to accept that whatever it is you're doing it's just not working - if atheism is a failure then it's your and your religion's failure. You simply must try harder.

[Scot Dutchy]

Never did get an answer to my multiverse question.

[Brian Peacock]

NOTE: RANDI IS COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON:

...

He troubles you doesn't he? Who are you actually trying to convince he's wrong? Is it us or yourself?

[Brian Peacock]

Most of you, old farts and what not, are harmless enough. Just keep your nonsense to yourself and you will be ok.

Healer heal thyself.

[Svartalf]

...

Which world view will not exist, sh&thead...

As if the Nye geek and the gang of atheists we deftly deal with (https://nostradamusart.wordpress.com) can destroy thousands of years of religious belief. Scoff.

It's about time you faced up to the fact that we're only atheists because you've failed to convince us. Therefore you have to accept that whatever it is you're doing it's just not working - if atheism is a failure then it's your and your religion's failure. You simply must try harder.

Awww, c'mon, religion simply isn't convincing, and using mormon or JW methods and insistence will serve only to make it obnoxious to boot.

[Rum]

In the days when a high proportion of children died young, where disease and random death reigned supreme it is easy to see why consolation was a big attraction - and how priest classes exploited it for their own ends making up fairy stories to offer some sort of consolation.

Mortality and its reality are still probably the biggest factors in religious belief - well that and the indoctrination you might be subject to in your family of birth but it isn't the immediate force it once was.

I do think SU has a point about 'transcendence' though (about the only coherent point he has made in this long sorry thread). Transcendence in Hinduism, Buddhism and even in some of the more esoteric branches of Christianity allowed a means of finding a kind of peace in this world. One may not agree with the methods involved - basically learning to turn off that which makes you human - i.e. your hopes, fears, passions and terrors but it has a long and at times positive tradition.

The woo that is attached to it is another matter of course. Meditation, for example, is quite easy top practice without resorting to mysticism to explain it and to place it in a context.

[Jason]

...

The modern non-religious man assumes a new existential position toward reality compared to all previous history. He regards himself as the sole subject and agent of history

I have to disagree with you right here. I think the first-person perspective belongs to the religious and spiritually inclined people of the world - they tend to view themselves as the prime agent in the mortal world (with divine agents typically above them in an orchestrated structure [triad-topped simple hierarchies are popular]). The non-religious person assumes a collectivist perspective if you ask me - their prime concern in many decisions is how it impacts the climate and the population of the world.

[Jason]

When I say 'prime agent' I mean to say that many religions adopt the view, generally speaking, that this life is a stage upon which we all play to please the divine agent(s). Their focus is on themselves, performing on the stage for divine approval.

That sounds like someone who regards themself (I think that's the proper gender neutral term?) as the "sole subject and agent."

[Svartalf]

...

The modern non-religious man assumes a new existential position toward reality compared to all previous history. He regards himself as the sole subject and agent of history

I have to disagree with you right here. I think the first-person perspective belongs to the religious and spiritually inclined people of the world - they tend to view themselves as the prime agent in the mortal world (with divine agents typically above them in an orchestrated structure [triad-topped simple hierarchies are popular]). The non-religious person assumes a collectivist perspective if you ask me - their prime concern in many decisions is how it impacts the climate and the population of the world.

begging pardon, but where and how does a person arriving to the conclusion that religion is false, and thus becoming an atheist adopt a collective perspective? he still is the prime knower in his universe.

[Jason]

I wasn't prepared for the Spanish inquisition.

Signor, I do not understand the question. Are you putting it to me that atheists cannot be communists?

[Svartalf]

Definitely not, but i don't get how an atheist is any more "collective" than a religious person. without going into solipsim, every person still is the prime actor and thinker in their own universe... and if atheists can communicate, so can god botherers, and they do,, a lot, if only to spread their infection.

[Jason]

Oh, well that's true. No one ever does your thinking or acting for you.


Unless you're a brain in a jar... then who knows?